mirror of
https://github.com/github/codeql.git
synced 2025-12-24 04:36:35 +01:00
455b840712
For those documents with no obvious new home I've pointed the links to the Internet Archive.
32 lines
1.5 KiB
XML
32 lines
1.5 KiB
XML
<!DOCTYPE qhelp PUBLIC
|
|
"-//Semmle//qhelp//EN"
|
|
"qhelp.dtd">
|
|
<qhelp>
|
|
<overview>
|
|
<p>If two classes share a lot of code then there is a lot of unnecessary code
|
|
duplication. This makes it difficult to make changes in future and makes the classes less easy to
|
|
read.</p>
|
|
|
|
</overview>
|
|
<recommendation>
|
|
<p>While completely duplicated classes are rare, they are usually a sign of a simple oversight.
|
|
Usually the required action is to remove all but one of them. A common exception to this rule may
|
|
arise from generated code that simply occurs in several places in the source tree; the check can be
|
|
adapted to exclude such results.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is far more common to see duplication of many methods between two classes, leaving just a few
|
|
that are actually different. Consider such situations carefully. Are the differences deliberate or
|
|
a result of an inconsistent update to one of the clones? If the latter, then treating the classes
|
|
as completely duplicate and eliminating one (while preserving any corrections or new features that
|
|
may have been introduced) is the best course. If the two classes serve different purposes then it
|
|
is possible there is a missing level of abstraction. Consider creating a common superclass of the
|
|
duplicate classes.</p>
|
|
|
|
</recommendation>
|
|
<references>
|
|
|
|
<li>E. Juergens, F. Deissenboeck, B. Hummel and S. Wagner, <em>Do Code Clones Matter?</em>, 2009. (<a href="https://wwwbroy.in.tum.de/~juergens/publications/ICSE2009_RP_0110_juergens.pdf">available online</a>).</li>
|
|
|
|
</references>
|
|
</qhelp>
|